I'm sure you understand this forum as well as I, most posters are not American and they don't know that 73% of Americans according to PEW Research Center are infavor of law enforcement detaining individuals who can't demonstrate proof of residency (either in Az or any other State). But I'm sure if we look at the immigration laws in their countries, they might realize that our policies are pretty relaxed compared to their home country.

"Arizona did not make illegal, illegal. Illegal was already illegal. It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law. States have had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws and have failed or refused to do so. Sanctuary policies are illegal under federal law (8 USC 1644 & 1373) yet we have them all over the United States."

Read the truth about the law and judge for yourselves. Stop listening to the slant of the "sky is falling -- and YOU DID IT" media. The law is fair & targets no ne -- unless you all are willing to state that it is only Hispanics that kidnap, rape, murder, traffic in humans & drugs, etc. -- the focus of the law. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Asking someone for an ID is hardly "harassment"... or hassling.

You can conveniently ignore my categorical declaration in a prior post to ‘hohan’ that I do not support or condone illegal immigration and call me an advocate for illegal immigrants. You can yourself conclude what that makes you.

You suggested that you’d much rather pay $10 for a head of lettuce or grow your own instead rather than support this ‘corrupt’ system. I encouraged you to do just that, grow your own.

It is tiring to keep hearing from people what they would rather do without them showing any fortitude to walk the talk.

It is tiring to hear the conservatives rant about budget deficits and big government when their support for an unnecessary war in Iraq has burned a multi trillion dollar hole in the budget. Or their support for ‘free-markets’ when the ‘free-markets’ just about brought the country to the verge of collapse.

It is also tiring to hear the liberals rant about the importance of the role of Government in creating/protecting jobs and then see our tax dollars go down the drain on wasteful programs in the name of creating jobs (there are so many road construction/utility upgrade projects under way that have left the roads in a worse condition than before they started, and they disrupt traffic to boot). Or the pet rant about the environment. The same liberals don’t think twice about generating enormous amount of waste by buying coffee in disposable cups, or plastic water bottles, or food at take-out joints. All of that trash first needs to be produced, and then needs to be disposed off. And it takes a lot of coal to produce the electricity that runs this waste machinery.

A productive discussion would be one where the solutions proposed are not only fair but also implementable.

Yes , both ICE and local law enforcement target employers but you would have to agree that the issue is bigger than that. Az has a population of 4 million, 11% of the pop are illegals; illegals make up almost 20% of the populations in their prisons. Like it or not this is a simple equation, more illegals ='s a greater crime rate.. Az's crime rate is greater than NYC and almost as bad as Chicago with half the population and two factors that jump out; its a border state and the other the number of illegals.

I've posted this before and people just don't understand that CBP has about 50K total agents to target 13 million illegals. So I'll ask you is it realistic for us to expect tightly controlled borders without the aid of local law enforcement?

@ MRB007. You forget that humans have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People enter the US illegally because the US government gives them no other option. Coming to the US illegally is often the only way for people and their families to improve their lives. Imagining a world where humans suppress this evolutionary instinct to survive because some human-made institutions say they can't cross an imaginary line is stupid and futile. Suggesting that human-made institutions should expend resources to resist this God-given instinct is immoral and cruel. When human law contradicts natural law the latter always wins.

The solution is to provide illegal immigrants with a route to legal residency (e.g. fines, learning English, community work, military service, etc.). Obviously, we don't want criminals (e.g. gang members, rapists, drug traffickers, etc.). But we do want hard-working men and women with a pioneering spirit. Who cares if they're poor and not well educated? The same can be said of pretty much everyone who passed through Ellis Island. They and their descendants turned out fine and made our country stronger.

Saying that Arizona's law only adds one component to what police officers do daily is naive or dishonest. Even though the law does not explicitly discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity, in practice it does. You yourself admit this. But while you're willing to sacrifice my civil liberties, I'm not. I have constitutionally protected rights, which I will not cede without a fight. Latinos are uniting across the board against this blatant attack on us. Decent human beings across the world are supporting us. Have you noticed how worldwide opinion is almost universally opposed to Arizona's law?

And again, you'll have to forgive me for not sharing your faith in our legal system. It'll be Latinos like me or my family that will have to spend time, money, and energy defending our constitutionally-protected rights in court. It always amazes me how easily people are willing to overlook the suffering of others so long as it benefits them. But that's the point isn't it? It is no skin off of your back right? So long as you're not harmed, you're okay with whatever.

I suggest you do some serious self-evaluation. Thinking its okay for police to target a particular race or ethnic group is not middle-of-the road. It is reactionary, racist, and anti-democratic. You defend yourself against the charge of racism because you say you're not thrilled by the law. That's a poor defense. In truth, you should be horrified by this law and your acceptance of it. It reveals a tremendous darkness in your soul.

"When the Nazis came for the communists, I said nothing; I was, of course, no communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; I was, of course, no Social Democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I said nothing; I was, of course, no trade unionist.
When they came for me, there was no one left who could protest."

It is illegal to enter a sovereign country without following the stated procedures for legal entry.
The issue is not about entry, is about enforcement of the "legal" status of residents.
I agree the authorities and government should enforce the laws, laws are the charter that allow an organized society life, however creating laws that allow racial profiling is not ethical and against the constitution of the US.
Illegal immigrants in the US come from all over the world, including Europe, are "European-looking" people going to be pulled over by the police and be asked to present immigration status documents? Probably not.
Other groups like Asians, Africans, Middle Eastern, etc? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe this is just a move driven by angst against people from Latin American countries and all is left is to question and understand why illegal immigration in the USA equals Latinos.

@apotheosis86: You, like many, confuse illegal immigration with legal immigration. Whether or not there is positive, negative or neutral impact on the US economy as a result of illegal immigration is irrelevant to this discussion. Only a few fringe groups advocate open borders where anyone can come in for any reason at any time. Human beings entering the United States without permission are illegal. Period. It is against the law, there is not ONE justification for it.

SamDiego's points are valid. The law as written adds only one component to what police officers do daily and have done for decades...ask for ID at a traffic (or other) stop. This takes that further so that, if the ID is not producible there must be further investigation into the person's status all the way to their residency status. Might this be abused so that Mexicans are more targeted even though that is technically prohibited by the written law? Sure...just like laws are bent and ignored by officials all the time. Doesn't make it right, but how is this any different? The courts sort out these things ALL THE TIME after the fact.

I am a registered (middle of the road) Democrat and while I am not thrilled with the law, I support it. It is far from perfect, but I have yet to hear the alternative.

I'm sad but not surprised to hear that in Arizona pulling people over on the basis of their skin color or ethnic background is as you say "nothing new...something done for decades." This is after all the state that gave us Barry Goldwater and resisted making MLK's birthday a national holiday.

However, just because Arizona has a history of not respecting civil rights doesn't make this law legal. You can't trample on the rights of American citizens just because you have a problem with their skin color or ethnicity. Perhaps you can afford to be patient and allow the courts to settle the question of whether the police have enough probable cause to question people about their immigration status. I don't have that luxury and neither do millions of legal US residents. I shouldn't have to accept that police will routinely stop me or my family members because we're brown and speak Spanish. Perhaps the law makes you feel safer, but it threatens me. Our democracy works because of the notion of majority rule with minority rights. My family has a right to equal protection of the law, which Arizona's law violates because in effect it makes me and my family all suspects. I'm American too and I will not cede my civil liberties without a fight.

And FYI, MichaelinMDUS: the argument that Arizona's law is unconstitutional is not uniquely liberal. Senator Lindsay Graham, a leading Republican, admits that this law will not pass legal scrutiny (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36418.html). Frankly, I'm not sure how liberal you are if you find yourself supporting the pseudo-patriotic tea party movement, which among other things continues to question whether President Obama is a natural-born American citizen. A word of warning to your reactionary, baby-boomer, white friends: Don't Tread on Me!

Finally, SamDiego, your argument that illegal immigration harms our economy is weak. Studies have produced mixed conclusions (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5312900). Some indicate that immigrants do push down wages, but not significantly. Illegal immigrants frequently take jobs that no one else wants. Their only competition are high school dropouts and people without a college education. It would be better for our government to help people finish high school and attend college (i.e. develop a highly-skilled workforce) rather than find ways to increase wages for crappy jobs (i.e. have society subsidize a low-skilled workforce that can't compete in a globalized economy). Additionally, you conveniently ignore the economic benefits of illegal immigration: lower prices; the creation of new markets, which lead to more jobs and economic growth; and, the increased creative output that results from greater diversity.

Most importantly, you seem oblivious to our national security interests. Our society is aging and our workforce is becoming smaller in size. Fewer people are working to provide financial support to more seniors. We actually need to encourage immigration (granted, in a much more controlled manner) to help increase the size of our workforce and provide greater economic stability. Similarly, the US cannot take on an isolationist stance in a globalized world. Illegal immigration reduces political instability in Latin America by reducing the dangers of having large, underemployed, young and therefore unstable populations (see Foreign Affairs "The New Population Bomb" Jan/Feb 2010). This matters because without that stability, the US loses access to markets to sell its products and more importantly the risk increases that foreign rivals like China will step in and increase their influence in the region to our detriment.

I'm a lifelong Democrat and liberal who always thought only the Republican right wing twisted the truth, but after seeing how liberals are now doing so in order to oppose the Arizona law, realize there's self deception or outright lying by both sides. No reasonably intelligent person can fail to see through arguments like yours, and its not difficult to totally destroy them as SamDiego effectively did below. There's obviously a strategy underway to deceive those not reasonably intelligent, and play on emotion rather than use logic - taking a play out of the Beck / Plain playbook.

Liberal reaction to this law has me seriously thinking of voting Republican for the first time ever. Not the issue itself, but liberal reaction to it. Regardless of the actual substance of this issue, thanks to arguments like yours and the people making them, I'm losing loyalty to the side I at least thought could be counted on to be truthful.

I'm not alone in this observation, and liberal reaction to this issue will cost Dems many votes in Nov - it'll be one big tea party, with folks making aruguments like yours serving the tea.

apotheosis86 wrote: May 12th 2010 5:02 GMT "Arizona´s law says officers can ascertain a person´s immigration status if there is a reasonable suspicion they entered illegally. However, on what basis could someone suspect that someone is an illegal immigrant other than their race, color, or national origin? Seriously, how do you distinguish an illegal immigrant from a legal immigrant? "

I am glad that you asked this question: Let me answer it for you. First, the Arizona law does not allow police to stop someone for the probable cause of being in this country illegally. You are wrong and it is this part of the debate that your side is lying about. This fact is clear: when someone is stopped for a traffic violation (it has to be for an offense other than suspected illegal entry) then the police officer asks for ID. If the driver produces a proper Arizona driver's license or a valid one from another state and all other aspects are found to be good, then the person, illegal or not, is allowed to go on his way with simply a ticket. If the driver cannot produce a valid license or then the police officer is entitled to ask more questions, including immigration status.

When any American citizen is stopped, if that citizen cannot produce valid ID the police officer is supposed to ask more questions and to look further into the ID and status of that citizen. Nothing new here and it has been done for decades. The policeman also is entitled to look for warrants and traffic violations on any person stopped, citizen or not. Again, nothing new here. It is only when the policeman is now supposed to ask about the citizenship of that person or to look into his computer database to look for warrants and traffic tickets, etc that he might find evidence that this person is illegal that you say the police cannot be allowed to do that. If the police can look further into the status of the person for any illegal activity, then why not illegal entry?

Finally, regardless of the crime, whether it is a traffic violation, robbery or illegal immigration, we as citizens expect that our government will arm the police with the appropriate laws and tactics to protect us from criminals. Illegal aliens are not harmless. They drive down the wages of the lower wage segment of our society, who are already citzens and who are entitled to work for a fair wage in their own country without having to compete with law breakers who enter our country illegally.

Let's also have the courts settle the question of whether the police have enough probable cause to arrest someone for illegal entry. If they stopped that person incorrectly, then that person should go free. Many criminals today go free after being stopped illegally by police. However, police have to have the same ability to stop and question an illegal alien as they have to stop and question any citizen of America. Illegal aliens do no have more right than Americans.

Zair wrote: May 6th 2010 6:49 GMT "It is ironic how many conservatives will first say we need to police our borders better and keep out illegals, and then say we need less government and lower taxes."

Zair, your comments show your ignorance. You confuse the proper role of limited government (security and sovereignty) with the usurpation of the role of private citizens by government (health care). Conservatives are not calling for expanded government. They are calling for government to perform the job expected of them.

As for this comment: "Why are all these people risking their lives to come here for job that most high school students wouldn't want?" This shows your ignorance of economics. People comong from lower wage countries will willing work for lower wages than Americans. The more lower wage workers come, the lower they drive wages down in America. Why do you think businesses want to hire illegals? They will work for much less. The reason, then that Americans won't do the work is because the wages are too low. If the illegals were stooped from entering and the employers were stopped from hiring, then the wages for these "low wage jobs would rise to the point where Americans would take the jobs.

The fact the Federal Government seems incapable of passing immigration reform laws does not justify Arizona´s decision to override established civil liberties. Specifically, the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Arizona´s law says officers can ascertain a person´s immigration status if there is a reasonable suspicion they entered illegally. However, on what basis could someone suspect that someone is an illegal immigrant other than their race, color, or national origin? Seriously, how do you distinguish an illegal immigrant from a legal immigrant? For that matter, how do you distinguish an immigrant from a so-called native in an immigrant country like the US? The truth is the police would target people who aren´t white, speak a foreign language, or speak English with an accent. Millions of people fit that description. Many of them are here legally. They deserve the same respect and consideration as all other US citizens. More importantly, they have a right to equal protection of the law and by corollary from the law.

Using the excuse that the law only applies when someone is already involved in a lawful stop or arrest is also disingenuous. Police can make up any excuse for stopping someone (e.g. jaywalking, running a red light, or having a defective tail light). Arguing this law does not lead to abuse is like arguing that segregation is okay as long as separate accomodations are equal. It is empirically false.

The law is bunk. It does not solve the country´s immigration problem and it threatens the American values that make us who we are.

Every country has a right to control immigration and to decide whether or not they want more people in. However, the issue here is not about immigration. It touches more on human dignity and the attempt to 'criminalise' Latinos for 'looking Mexican'.

In a place like America, where some states used to be, and still is to a large extent, occupied by Hispanic people before the white and black population arrived, it is stupid to pass a law that allows the police to: "stop and demand the identity of Mexican-looking people". Who in his right mind does not know that at least 1 out 3 "Mexican-looking" men stopped will be an autochthonous or native American? So, if this be the case, wouldn't Americans Latino be right to feel harassed somehow?

I am for the new law in Arizona. I think it is real simple and not a racial issue. Mostly I think many people are upset since it is a step to enforce the law of the land. Polls show that majority of the people are for this.

My point is and was that we seem to have a universal perception about our ability (or not) to be able to survive without illegal alien's contribution to our economy. I believe that premise requires analysis before being accepted as factual.

I strongly think we could (and would) find viable and probably in the longer term preferable alternatives.

That you would characterize my comment as "rant" simply highlights this issue as beyond objective reason by advocates for illegal immigrants.

Why don’t you grow your own then? The journey of a 100 miles starts with small steps (or something like that). If you do, then more power to you. And if you don’t and just want to rant, then that is OK too!

I'd personally rather pay $10 for a head of lettuce than indirectly subsidize an immoral system. In fact, $10 per head lettuce might spur interest again in personal gardens, which would ultimately lead to reduction of our dependence on the corporate farms now enabled through illegal immigration. We cannot just assume that short term perpetuation of the status quo is the means or an optimal end.

I generally don't comment, but I remember when conservative America began a campaign to attack any news source that doesn't spoon feed them the facts as they'd like to perceive them to be. 911 was just the cause to really take the attack up many levels. Today it's unpatriotic if you don't devote time to the latest stop on Sarah Palin's talking tour, or if you don't include the obligatory "but Democrats are also like that" when pointing out how partisan the GOP has gotten.

Banjo12's reaction to this article is cut from the cloth of the Arizonan's who pushed for this law. And the rest of the post follows as logically. First all of Mexico moves to the US, then South America, then Africa. Certainly this is the logical outcome.

The point is, of the Banjo12s out there and laws like the one in Arizona that takes things far too far, reactionary finger pointing that gets hold of the legislative process is a far greater crack in the fabric of a society than any retirees concern over educating someone else's kids.